Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TV Show Talk' started by gusmahler, Jul 27, 2012.
*psst don't look at customer satisfaction numbers, those might get ugly*
*pssst.. don't look at the ratings or else you might find outthat about 30 million people aren't avoiding primetime and maybe aren't as offended by NBC's coverage as social media wants us to believe.
And maybe they are as offended as social media is showing us
And yet they're watching anyway. 40 million people CHOSE to watch the Opening Ceremony, full well knowing it was on delay. I'm not dismissing the Twitter comments, but you also can't dismiss the ratings and say those numbers don't tell a story. And no, I don't believe that story is that Americans are so into the Olympics that they all, on the whole, can't stand the coverage and are dealing with it night after night for hours at a time because there's no better use of their time
The only word you find important in regards to NBC's coverage. Doesn't matter how bad the coverage actually is... the ratings are OK, therefore it is automatically good.
You'd make a good hedge fund manager I would imagine.
No reason for NBC to worry about Twitter. It's just viewers, not advertisers. Advertisers are very pleased.
What do ratings measure.. the number of people watching a television show. In other words, the number of viewers. I don't know enough about the advertising industry to know whether or not happy viewers buy advertised products in greater numbers than unhappy viewers. I don't have the answer to that one. What I do know is that NBC's Olympics coverage, which apparently got a lot more objectionable since 4 years ago, has more people watching (all on tape, no less) than last time out.
I am not making the argument that NBC's coverage is good (which is very subjective to begin with). I'm making the argument that NBC's coverage is serving their means and drawing people to watch. And what I do know about television ratings is that the placement of a program (when it's on, where it's on, and what else is on around it) often has as big an effect on the ratings as the quality of the program itself.
Since NBC isn't doing anything different than they have always done seems to me any number increases are due to increased overall interest in the event itself and not due to anything specific that NBC is doing. People want to watch the Olympics and watching on NBC is the only game in town for the mainstream. Some of the numbers coming out of Canada seem to bear that out.
...to watch...[a highlights show] :uglyhamme
Yup, a lot of people out there watch tape-delayed Olympics. Who knew! Wait, that's right.. NBC did.
That's a valid argument. But what you do think drives interest in an event? What is it about these Olympics that are more appealing than the live one? And there was a TON of hype attached to Beijing, moreso it seems than what they had for London. I remember the tagline for the Opening Ceremony called it "the event of the decade" in the lead-up.
You assume none of that increase has anything to do with NBC and that the event just got better since 2008. They were expecting lower ratings this time around, in large part because there's no live coverage in primetime this year, you don't have Phelps going for gold, and it seems like there's a lack of fresh storylines this time around. But here's some food for thought, because NBC absolutely is doing something they didn't do last time.. they're streaming all the events online. NBC said part of the strategy was hoping that you'd see an event live online and then the buzz would fuel viewership for the primetime show. Well.. is it inconceivable to say that's what's happening? Social media is a powerful thing and maybe it's a similar effect up in Canada. Something has to be fueling the surge in viewership and I don't think it's so plain as to simply say there's more interest in the Olympics, especially that NBC has gotten so much criticism in the past. That's certainly nothing new.
The Olympics really aren't made for television, if you stop to think about it.
Consider a Carnival, only much bigger. You can't show all the stuff happening simultaneously at a carnival.. and even if you could, something would be lost. I have to think the thing about the Olympics would be actually being there in person for the events and the experiences. Everything else will pale in comparison.
So we get what we get... which is far more than we got say 20 years ago.
NBC's online coverage has gotten panned. It's been pretty bad. Stuttering, pixelating, freezing. Not sure if it is all events but the few events I've checked out there are no announcers either. And an ugly black bar around three borders so you can't get true full screen. No repeats and ability to re watch until after it is shown on TV. I quickly went back to the BBC after I saw how bad it was.
I suppose if you believe that all publicity is good publicity the incredible amount of negative publicity NBC is getting now via social media may be driving people to watch. So maybe #nbcfail is helping NBC?
So no, I don't think NBC is doing anything special. Success seems to be happening in spite of them.
Again, Canada is also have a surge in ratings. Is NBC causing that too? What about other countries, also having a surge?
Couple of things there.. they said there wouldn't be announcers on some events. That was the plan (similar to Beijing) where they're just giving you the pure world feed. And the archiving only applies to certain events, not all of them. Of course, you'll probably tell me that it applies to the ones that matter, so everything else that is available on demand doesn't count.
Not necessarily #nbcfail, but social media in general. It's a way of generating buzz. Someone can be watching Missy Franklin online and tell all his/her friends 'you should check this out later.' That's what NBC is trying to do with the streaming. And that the ratings are up when it wasn't expected they would be, it's certainly a possibility. Again, you're looking at all the negative backlash against NBC and everyone's best explanation for the ratings is that the Olympics have gotten that much better since last time and that's the real reason for the uptick in ratings. I don't know about other countries, nor can I explain Canada (although Vancouver 2010 may have a spillover effect to this).
Either way, there has to be some explanation for this renewed interest in the Olympics. I'd like to think it's more than "it's happening just because it's happening" and that little to nothing NBC has done or is doing is causing their success.
I think it's likely more social and economically driven looking for something good to get behind than to do with anything NBC has done.
No I told you the issues I had with the NBC's online strategy and why it is not working for me and many others. NBC can choose to ignore customer feedback. Could have been so much better.
Yes it does create buzz, unfortunately mostly negative buzz for the NBC brand at the moment. It's a shame as this could have been the Olympics where NBC really took advantage of social media. The scenario you describe is not working as well as it could have under a tape delay scenario. If everyone was seeing the event live people everywhere could be using twitter to react to what they watched and create that buzz you described. Unfortunately with it being shown on tape delay at different times in the US many people actually are now avoiding twitter so they don't get the event spoiled. Actually NBC is doing a great job it appears spoiling events before they happen even on air.
So how are the ratings in other countries? If they are up as well (they are in Canada) that may help answer your question on whether it is NBC's doing or broader trends.
Part of it was that it was hyped up. Phelps winning 8 gold in 2008, which four years later turned in to "can he do it again, and can he become the most decorated Olympian in history"? Over the last few months I have seen WAY more ads for the Olympics then I remember seeing in 2008.
Another thing is.... people have a lot closer connections to Great Britain than to China. I can't tell you how many people say that right after they want the U.S. to win medals, the U.K. is their second choice as the host nation. The U.K. is more accessible, it is an ally, and many more people have been there than people have been to China. Location, location, location. Among Americans, there was not the same sentiment towards China. They didn't want China to win medals like they want the U.K. to succeed with these games.
NBC has also given us much more access to Olympic Trials. In 2008 they broadcasted much less trials, and this year they put many of the trials on prime time, live, on NBC main network. (Or, of course.... with a 3 hour time delay for the west who are not worthy.) In 2008 you mostly had to go find them on Universal Sports, which COULD be gotten OTA at the time, but not on Dish/DirecTV. During the trials this year, there has been so many Universal Sports free trials, you could have probably seen most of it without needing sports pack.
I already knew who Missy Franklin was.... because I saw her on NBC before the Olympics even started.
In any case, there are many factors in play. Can't be put on a single thing. But I do believe London vs Beijing (and in many older minds: Democratic, free, ally vs: Communist, rival, job thieves.) has played big a factor in these Olympics being more popular.
The only other country I've seen any hint of ratings for is from BBC and obviously you can't really compare them to anything since they're the host country. I think we can both agree that Twitter has had some negative effects on NBC's coverage but also some positive effects as well. You say "if everyone was seeing the event live".. well, the people most likely to be using Twitter and creating that buzz and the ones more likely to be watching on their computer and not just on TV. Yes, the streaming quality has been bad, but again, most people in the United States CAN watch any live and don't have to avoid Twitter or any other social media outlets. Whereas much of the audience watching on TV maybe isn't as big on Twitter and/or isn't as turned off by knowing the results as it seems.
I've made this argument at past Olympics and it still applies here.. how many people found out Missy Franklin had won the gold (and not just from the Today Show promo, which was a pretty stupid gaffe) and tuned in BECAUSE of it to see video of the race instead of not wanting to tune in. You and others seem to be looking for any reason other than give the slightest amount of credit to NBC to explain it. NBC was banking on social media driving interest in the Olympics. So far it seems that's what's happening, so I think it's unfair to say this is all happening in spite of them when part of their strategy was for social media to help them. And it seems like it has.
The opening ceremony, which was LIVE, I repeat, LIVE in Canada, was seen by 6.4 million Canadians in its entirety, (or 20% of the population) and 16.6 million Canadians saw at least PART of it live (or 50% of the population).
Granted, the U.K. has a special bond with Canada, the queen being on their money to this day, and they just came off of organizing an Olympics in 2010. Nevertheless, those are some impressive numbers.
So in essence, while NBC paid, calculated per head of the population, about twice as much for the broadcasting of the Olympics, CTV is getting a lot better ratings, at least for the opening ceremony.
Who woulda thunk this "LIVE" thing with the ceremonies actually worked.
You didn't actually put "CTV Olympics Ratings" in Google, or you would have seen this: